Conversion rate of laparoscopic or robotic to open sacrocolpopexy: are there associated factors and complications?

Robotic sacrocolpopexy: a game worth playing? A critical literature analysis

Robotic sacrocolpopexy is an advanced minimally invasive technique for the surgical management of urogenital prolapse. It offers superior precision, reduced blood loss, and lower conversion rates compared to traditional approaches. However, longer operative times, higher costs, and the need for specialized training remain the most significant challenges of robotic surgery. The advantages of robotic sacrocolpopexy are reduced intraoperative complications, lower blood loss, and decreased conversion rates compared to traditional approaches. However, it was described to involve longer operative times, increased costs, and the need for a specialized training. Additionally, the technique shows significant potential for reducing complications in obese patients and improving cosmetic outcomes. Comparative studies highlight that robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy yield similar long-term outcomes, with differences primarily in operative time and cost-efficiency robotics. The lack of standardized protocols remains a limitation, and long-term data on durability and cost-benefit analyses are needed. Future research should prioritize optimizing outcomes, reducing costs, and improving accessibility to robotic urogynecologic surgery.

Effects of Obesity on Urogynecologic Prolapse Surgery Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the literature on outcomes of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery in patients from various body mass index (BMI) categories to determine the association between obesity and surgical outcomes.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched from inception to April 12, 2022; ClinicalTrials.gov was searched in September 2022 (PROSPERO 2022 CRD42022326255). Randomized and nonrandomized studies of urogynecologic POP surgery outcomes were accepted in which categories of BMI or obesity were compared.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

In total, 9,037 abstracts were screened; 759 abstracts were identified for full-text screening, and 31 articles were accepted for inclusion and data were extracted.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

Studies were extracted for participant information, intervention, comparator, and outcomes, including subjective outcomes, objective outcomes, and complications. Outcomes were compared among obesity categories (eg, BMI 30-34.9, 35-40, higher than 40), and meta-analysis was performed among different surgical approaches. Individual studies reported varying results as to whether obesity affects surgical outcomes. By meta-analysis, obesity (BMI 30 or higher) is associated with an increased odds of objective prolapse recurrence after vaginal prolapse repair (odds ratio [OR] 1.38, 95% CI, 1.14-1.67) and after prolapse repair from any surgical approach (OR 1.31, 95% CI, 1.12-1.53) and with complications such as mesh exposure after both vaginal and laparoscopic POP repair (OR 2.10, 95% CI, 1.01-4.39).

CONCLUSION

Obesity is associated with increased likelihood of prolapse recurrence and mesh complications after POP repair.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42022326255.

Robotic sacrocolpopexy

Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a common cause of gynecological disease in elderly women. The prevalence of POP has increased with an aging society. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy (ASC) is safer and more effective than the vaginal approach in patients with apical compartment POP because it has a higher anatomical cure rate, a lower recurrence rate, less dyspareunia, and improved sexual function. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) has replaced ASC. Robotic sacrocolpopexy (RSC) also helps overcome the challenges of LSC by facilitating deep pelvic dissection and multiple intracorporeal suturing. The RSC is technically easy to apply, has a steep learning curve, and offers many advantages over the LSC. However, insufficient data led us to conclude that the LSC is superior overall, especially in terms of costeffectiveness. The present review provides insights into different aspects of RSC, highlighting the most common benefits and concerns of this procedure. We searched for eligible articles discussing this issue from January 2019 to March 2022 to reveal the outcomes of RSC.

Robot-assisted pelvic floor reconstructive surgery: an international Delphi study of expert users

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery has gained popularity for the reconstruction of pelvic floor defects. Nonetheless, there is no evidence that robot-assisted reconstructive surgery is either appropriate or superior to standard laparoscopy for the performance of pelvic floor reconstructive procedures or that it is sustainable. The aim of this project was to address the proper role of robotic pelvic floor reconstructive procedures using expert opinion.

METHODS

We set up an international, multidisciplinary group of 26 experts to participate in a Delphi process on robotics as applied to pelvic floor reconstructive surgery. The group comprised urogynecologists, urologists, and colorectal surgeons with long-term experience in the performance of pelvic floor reconstructive procedures and with the use of the robot, who were identified primarily based on peer-reviewed publications. Two rounds of the Delphi process were conducted. The first included 63 statements pertaining to surgeons' characteristics, general questions, indications, surgical technique, and future-oriented questions. A second round including 20 statements was used to reassess those statements where borderline agreement was obtained during the first round. The final step consisted of a face-to-face meeting with all participants to present and discuss the results of the analysis.

RESULTS

The 26 experts agreed that robotics is a suitable indication for pelvic floor reconstructive surgery because of the significant technical advantages that it confers relative to standard laparoscopy. Experts considered these advantages particularly important for the execution of complex reconstructive procedures, although the benefits can be found also during less challenging cases. The experts considered the robot safe and effective for pelvic floor reconstruction and generally thought that the additional costs are offset by the increased surgical efficacy.

CONCLUSION

Robotics is a suitable choice for pelvic reconstruction, but this Delphi initiative calls for more research to objectively assess the specific settings where robotic surgery would provide the most benefit.

Peritoneal Adhesions and their Prevention - Current Trends

The development of adhesions after gynecologic surgery is a severe problem with ramifications that go beyond the medical complications patients suffer (which most often include pain, obstruction and infertility), since they also impose a huge financial burden on the health care system and increase the workload of surgeons and all personnel involved in surgical follow-up care. Surgical techniques to avoid adhesion formation have not proven to be sufficient and pharmaceutical approaches for their prevention are even less effective, which means that the use of adhesion prevention devices is essential for achieving decent prophylaxis. This review explores the wide range of adhesion prevention products currently available on the market. Particular emphasis is put on prospective randomized controlled clinical trials that include second-look interventions, as these offer the most solid evidence of efficacy. We focused on adhesion scores, which are the most common way to quantify adhesion formation. This enables a direct comparison of the efficacies of different devices. While the greatest amount of data are available for oxidized regenerated cellulose, the outcomes with this adhesion barrier are mediocre and several studies have shown little efficacy. The best results have been achieved using adhesion barriers based on either modified starch, i.e., 4DryField® PH (PlantTec Medical GmbH, Lüneburg, Germany), or expanded polytetrafluoroethylene, i.e., GoreTex (W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc., Medical Products Division, Flagstaff, AZ), albeit the latter, as a non-resorbable barrier, has a huge disadvantage of having to be surgically removed again. Therefore, 4DryField® PH currently appears to be a promising approach and further studies are recommended.